Watch Peter Sinclair’s latest video:
Food price soars as US sweats
All this extreme US weather has its effects on us too
Rex Tillerson, 'We'll adapt to that.'
What an epitaph for a dead-head.
Don't forget to pick up on that Yale Forum video, where Admiral Titley recounts the tale of some high up numpty having to ask Titley why does the navy care about sea level rise. That is Betula level of ignorance and disconnect on display.
Waht Tillerson is really saying: 'The rest of you adapt, we in Exxon Mobil are good with stuff as it is. So, f*ck off, I've got mine."
We'll adapt to that
Yeah, F***wit, sure we will...
A great piece of work.
More from that interview with Christian Parenti.
Rex Tillerson, ‘We’ll adapt to that.‘
Tillerson also said that;
...we have spent our entire existence adapting.
This is in fact the very opposite of the truth of the matter.
Humans have spent the last 12 thousand years enjoying the remarkable climatic stability of the Holocene epoch, where mean global temperature has fluctuated not more than one half of a degree celcius from the mid-20th century baseline. It is during this time that all the advances of human civilisation have occurred, as Grist's Rob Davies so succintly pointed out in his recent TED talk.
We haven't spent any of our civilised existence adapting to climate changes, as we (and our cultures) are already adapted to an exquisitely and uniquely stable climate. In fact, what humans have done is to adapt the environment to their own specific requirements, and the very existence of heating and cooling to provide that remarkably indulgent concept 'room temperature' goes to show just how we adapt local environments to reflect our underlying and very tight pre-exisiting adaptation to a narrow climatic envelope.
The trouble is that we now face the prospect of being thrown way beyond the boundaries of our bioclimatic envelope, and our agriculture and other primary industries along with us. Dreams of geoengineering aside, there is no way that humanity can "adapt" the planet back to a stable global ecosystem conducive to human societal integrity if we pass much further than 2 degrees celcius, and if we push much further than about 3 degrees increase in mean global temperature, I doubt that humans would being anything more than an endangered and declining species.
If we can't engineer the planet to remain within our bioclimatic optimum whilst we had the chance to keep it there, we sure as squirrels eat nut will not be able to bring it back if that optimum is lost.
Rex Tillerson is of that clique of people who are either pathologically deluded about reality, or are avariciously sociopathic. And in the end there's effectively not more than a whisker of daylight between the two - I wouldn't be surprised if future generations don't wonder why we didn't treat these dissemblers in this light.
Welcome To The Rest Of Their Lives...
"no money to fight the fires that burned through 19,000 acres. But that was a fraction of the 7 to 8 billion board feet of marketable timber laid waste by what some have called “a thousand year event.”....."that cremated three million acres in Idaho and Montana, taking the lives of 78 Forest Service firefighters and at least seven civilians".
"Winds felled trees as if they were blades of grass: darkness covered the land; firewhirls danced across the blackened skies like an aurora borealis from hell; the air was electric with tension, as if the earth itself was ready to explode in flame. And everywhere people heard the roar, like a thousand trains crossing a thousand steel trestles.”
“I thought ‘Good heavens, is the whole world coming to an end?"
"The sky turned first a ghastly, ominous yellow then darkness shut down in the middle of the afternoon,” Koch recalled. “When all was over, a large part of the town of Wallace had burned. Saltese, Haugan, Deborgia and numerous ranches and ranger stations were left in ashes. Game animals were killed by the thousands and stream bottoms were white with the bellies of dead trout.”
“My men and pack strings are all out in the path of the fire, and I am afraid many of them can’t escape alive"
"four of a crew of 25 perished on the Swamp Creek division"
"the great sacrifice of human life is not, can never be, replaced or forgotten"
Umm...forgotten? Too bad Peter Sinclair wasn't around in 1910 to splice together a video...
Betula's been whining for weeks that the future is too uncertain and we never know how badly warming will affect us so we should do nothing and anyway the IPCC made it all up to feed poor children or something.
Suddenly we get a taste of hot weather under a warmer climate and Betula's sooking changes to "Well, there were fires in the past!"
Just imagine how bad that fire would have been had it been in today's warmer, drier climate.
No, I'm sure Betula would be shrieking that the fire would be beneficial for us!
What you fail to grasp Bet is that what we see now is only the beginning of a ramp up in frequency and geographical scope of these events. Sure huge swathes of forest has been destroyed by fire in the past, heck I'll bet you stared in that Disney Bambi (probably as Thumper), but we haven't seen nothing yet I am afraid.
What I would like to see is the likes of Tillerson taken out into the wild with nothing and then told to 'adapt or die'. His sort needs a f***ing kick in the arse. Sorry for the salty language I could have produced more extreme, you may even have learned some new sayings, if not held back by etiquette.
Betula, 2:44 pm 11 July:
Welcome To The Rest Of Their Lives…
Um, before you try to confabulate apples with oranges, you need to stop and think.
What do you think the consequence of fires a hundred years ago would have been if the folk back then had had our fire-fighting and communications technologies?
And what do you think the consequences of the July 2012 fires would have been if they could only have been fought with the technology of a hundred years ago?
Compare, contrast, and critically discuss.
"What do you think the consequence of fires a hundred years ago would have been if the folk back then had had our fire-fighting and communications technologies?"
What do you think the consequence of fires a hundred years ago would have been if they had to deal with wildland - urban interface?
"Expansive urbanization and other human activity in areas adjacent to wildlands is a primary reason for the catastrophic structural losses experienced in wildfires"
You didn't answer the question Betula. There's a difference between increasing the chance of contact, and how that contact is fought with available technology.
Have another go, and this time see if you can answer the questions.
You can't compare the consequences if the contacts are different. One has less contacts and less technology, the other has more contacts and more technology.
And where is the manpower in your questions. The more contacts you have, the greater the need for manpower. You have to make decisions on when and where to send that manpower without spreading them too thin.
The fact is, while you speculate on hypotheticals, bigger fires under similar conditions have occurred in the past and people didn't think about putting out a "welcome to the rest of our lives" doormat.
By the way, when you watch these pieced together clips, you do you realize they are put together for maximum effect don't you? I mean, you don't stay up at night imagining the climate is coming to get you....do you?
You can’t compare the consequences if the contacts are different.
This is Betula in a nutshell - always presuming that any uncertainty is to the advantage of Betula's position. (And essentially disclaiming the possibility that there may be factors that drive the behaviour in question that are amenable to analysis, if those factors would go against Betula's position.)
It does have the considerable advantage that you don't have to do any real analysis, let alone consider evidence that may challenge your preconceptions.
For those who insist on being unable to see the pattern in a dramatic cluster of remarkable - in some cases unprecedented - individual weather events.
If the weather 'got' you, Betty, it would only be the most poetic of justice...
"By the way, when you watch these pieced together clips, you do you realize they are put together for maximum effect don’t you"?
Shorter Betty: Look, if you completely ignore any context whatsoever, s'all natural!. Honest!
You can’t compare the consequences if the contacts are different. One has less contacts and less technology, the other has more contacts and more technology.
You really are that stupid, aren't you? My point is about technology, other parameters being equal, having been taken into account, factored into the equation. You know - calibrated...
After all, your post of July 10, 2:44 pm was about trying to prove that the magnitude of a fire a hundred years ago was no different that the one just over a week ago. That nothing has changed climatically. Well, to compare you need to equilibrate. Would the 1910 fire have been as big as described had the firefighters had modern resources, and had the respective climates still had the difference that exists?
Heck, you're babbling about the greater contact area today - with that comes a greater population to fight the fire too, so if the 1910 firefighters had had the simple access to the number of people on the ground that their modern colleagues have, would the fire have been as big as it otherwise was?
If you're going to compare events at different points in time, you need to account for both postively- and negatively-acting cofactors. You emphasise only those factors that might support your case, and dismiss those that invalidate it. Worse, your point about contact area is largely spurious, because the question is not about the initiation of a fire, but about how big it it might have been in the past had historic resources been comparable to today's.
You need to read those MSDSs more carefully. It appears that you're labouring under appreciable neurological compromise - unless the denseness that you exhibit is merely a product of an inherent lack of intelligence, or of a deficiency in education, or of an ideologically-motivated cognitive scotoma... or of some combination of all four.
I'm sure that modern heavy equipment, up-to-the minute weather reports and satellite imagery, handheld communications, chainsaws, hand-portable pumps, chemical retardants, helicopters and water bombers for fighting the fire, spotting, and providing access to ground crews, haven't had any effect on the ability to manage wildfires.
The Strange Case Of Global Warming
62nd Meeting of Global Laureates
About half way through the clip didn't I hear that dumb reactionary fat ugly filthy rich misogynist capitalist pig from Exxon say he believed that CO2 caused global warming? No he's a lying bastard as well eh Bill.
Karenmackspot posting minutes after Mackspotkaren? I am shocked!
Karen is impressed by Ivan Giaever - probably because his research technique is the same as hers - browsing denier blogs.
"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. "
52 years after the research that won him a Nobel prize, Giaever makes a fool of himself.
That would be Ivar.
I LOL'd heartily at his "doddering old man can't use computer" routine, his claims that Al Gore is a scientist, his definition of pseduo-science being cherrypicking the information for results you want before he did just that and then his claim that it's impossible to measure the average temperature of the Earth!
"I don't think you can do that!" he says, never bothering to check how we do that.
"You look out of the window, you see the sky, you see the clouds, you don't see the Co2!"
We're not even eight minutes in and he's probably dropped about twenty howlers. This is an outstanding comedy routine.
Thanks for the vid Karenmackspot, I needed a hearty laugh!
Australian drought, then floods.
Asian drought, then floods.
Russian drought, then floods.
South American drought, then floods.
American drought, then ................
Talking about fires, a bushfire during the summer in Australia, with a North wind fanning it cannot be stopped by anything or anybody. Most fire personal are there to mop up, nobody today can fight a fire front with a north wind behind it. Black Saturday in Victoria was pushed along with a Nth Westerly and was to fast and unstoppable, the wind changed early in the evening to a Sth Westerly and it was still unstoppable. The fire front can also be hundreds of kilometers wide, I would like to see the technologically efficient firefighting berntard facing one of these fires, hehe, trying to put it out with his wee wllie.
Often fire personal attempt to burn firebreaks, hahaha, many times these get away and enlarge the fire front. Oh yeah, what about cutting fire breaks with bulldozers ? Hot embers from a bush fire can travel 20 klms ahead of the fire front, fire balls easily jump from one hill to the next and the path of the fire is highly unpredictable.
Nup, 1910 or 2010, we still can only handle the baby fires, even the water bomber Elvis looks a bit like berntard squirting on a fire.
You're as thick as molasses straight from the ice-box, KMSPMM.
The point of the concern over climate change is that extreme events will become more frequent, and greater in magnitude. Especially the warming and drying ones.
It's just what happens when the total energy in the climatic system is increased.
But these points will have completely sailed over your head because, as I noted at 8:31 am on 6 July on the Open Thread in the discussion about time zones, you're innumerate to the extent that you would need to undress to be able to count to 21.
Any quantification more abstract than this icosihenal exercise would elicit from you the same confundity as trying to orienteer in 5 dimensions, so it's no surprise that you haven't understood the significance of the straightforward numerics of global temperature rise or of extreme climatic event frequency and magnitude.
"The point of the concern over climate change is that extreme events will become more frequent, and greater in magnitude. Especially the warming and drying ones."
Was that in the gray literature barnterd? Besides I was only sorting out the total mangling of your fire scenarios, it is obvious that you are a city greeny.
"It’s just what happens when the total energy in the climatic system is increased."
So confident! You are not a scientist.
"But these points will have completely sailed over your head because, as I noted at 8:31 am on 6 July on the Open Thread in the discussion about time zones, you’re innumerate to the extent that you would need to undress to be able to count to 21."
You were "one hour wrong", you know it, you are not a man!
and you know NOTHING about bush fires, @ 3:26 am you spew total BS
Mack - 'it's happening, it's us, but we'll adapt' is the next stage after 'it isn't happening' and 'it's happening but it's not us'.
(You and your alternate personalities are actually getting left behind in the more primitive stages of Denial.)
Incidentally, next comes 'it's happening, it's us, we probably won't be able to adapt, but it's too late to do anything about it anyway'.
Followed shortly by 'I have my own island, air-conditioned mansion, and private militia, so good luck and screw you all!'
That will include you and/or your descendents, too, I might add. Of course, you'll all look up to them for it...
birdbrain bill, no doubt your gods are now frantically and desperately trying to remove the editor here http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nclimate15…
Besides I was only sorting out the total mangling of your fire scenarios,
Eh? In your imagination.
You did nothing to compare and contrast the influence of climate on fire frequency intensity, which it the whole point of my exposure of Betula's original non sequitur.
...it is obvious that you are a city greeny
Wrong, as usual.
I live in a rural (mostly horticultural/agricultural) community where I own an acreage, three quarters of which is preserved for wildlife, and the rest is being put to farming rare breeds.
Greenie, you betcha, but not city.
You are not a scientist.
Wrong, as usual.
Unless three degrees, a postgrad diploma, and more than two decades of work in scientific research, diagnosis, and teaching at the teriary level count for nothing. If you think so, you'd better tell the tax office that my forms that variously say "research assistant", "hospital scientist", "scientific officer", "ecologist", "wildlife biologist" all refer to professions that are not scientific.
You were “one hour wrong”, you know it, you are not a man!
I was correct, and I know it, which is all that concerns me. I have already told you that I was referencing my time to the post where I was addressing salient points, rather than the typo which I acknowlegded in passing, but which I considered irrelevant to anything substantive.
As I have noted previously, it's curious to see how vehemently and persistently you're scrambling to make an issue from this, when none exists. Except of course when you further screw it up, by moving me almost a quarter of the way around the world. That was an especially wonderful blunder, because that's about as far as you can get from either being close, or making a simple sign or meridianal error that would put me on the Altantic side of the planet.
Nup, 1910 or 2010, we still can only handle the baby fires...
Are you saying that our modern technology makes no difference to the outcomes of firefighting? This was sort of my point, after all...
and you know NOTHING about bush fires, @ 3:26 am you spew total BS
Oh, "total BS", huh? And what exactly is the "BS" that I "spew"? Do you have sufficient neurons to construct a cogent and defensible argument that backs up you claim?
And on the matter of bushfires...
Every year I spend a few weeks where I conduct maintenance on my property with wildfire in mind, in a district where dozens of lives and many hundreds of houses have been lost to previous wildfires. I've fought bushfires in the past (hopefully, never again), and I've been trapped in a particularly nasty bushfire (hopefully, never ever again). I've specifically designed with catastrophic wildfire all buildings that are or will be built on my land. Oh, and I've supervised a uni student doing a project on bushfire effects on vegetation associations and fauna responses.
Do you deliberately sit down and plan just how innovatively you'll be wrong each time you post?
Guys, don't buy into Karenmackspot's baiting unless he's actually willing to sustain a debate as opposed to distract from each time he is shown to be wrong.
It was only yesterday that Karenmackspot posted a scientific paper here claiming it proved it had been warmer in the past when it actually said this was far and away the warmest point in human history.
Do you deliberately sit down and plan just how innovatively you’ll be wrong each time you post?
I'll raise you one - Karenmackspot doesn't care about being wrong as long as he finds science to support his free market ideology - in other words what the great comedian Ivar Giaever has called "psuedo-science".
In the last two days alone he has claimed it is both warming and cooling.
Australian drought, then floods.
Asian drought, then floods.
Russian drought, then floods.
South American drought, then floods.
American drought, then …………….
They are all very large areas you stupid person, and sure as different conditions kick in on the back of disturbed atmospheric circulations this is just what has been anticipated. But of course you won't know that because you get critical thinking lessons from the likes of WwUseWishfulThinking and vacant spaces such as The Curry House.
“It’s just what happens when the total energy in the climatic system is increased.”
So confident! You are not a scientist.
Just as anyone who confidently claims that a pot of water with a fire under it will boil is not a scientist. At least, that's the viewpoint of the mindbogglingly stupid and dishonest.
I've been away from the Deltoid forum for a while, but I see there are the same characters pursuing the same flawed arguments, such as Bernard J, on a mission to save humanity by enforcing an uncertain solution to an uncertain problem.
The poor people in this world would be laughing their heads off, if they had full access to world-wide media reporting on such concerns.
We in developed nations squander billions of dollars annually on unnecessary luxury items, simply for status reasons, to make us feel good.
If we wanted to reduce our CO2 emission to almost zero, we could do it easily, by paying that additional money we spend on luxury items to a fund to construct clean and sustainable Power Plants. Such luxury items which we certainly don't need would include, most gourmet foods, a Mercedes Benz or other luxury car when a basic Hyundai will serve the purpose, the designer shirt which cost 10x the amount of an off-the-peg shirt which is just as durable and seviceable, and a thousand other examples which I won't bore you with.
You can't expect the poor to sacrifice their designer shirts. They don't have any, obviously.
Ray, if it's an uncertsin problem, what information are you privvy to that indivates this in contradiction to the IPCC synthesis of allthe science and data, s accepted by every national science body in the world?
hmmm......interesting, so much for bernturd's dumb theory !
" Wildfires. The expectation for increases in wildfires in the Southwestern U.S. are driven by climate models which project warmer and drier conditions in the future. However, there is mounting evidence that wildfire regimes are more complex than the warmer/ drier conditions equates to more fires hypothesis. Roos and Swetnam (2012) reconstructed wildfire frequency in Ponderosa pine forests across Arizona and New Mexico back more than 1,400 years. They found that the frequency of major fires was unchanged between the warm/dry conditions associated with the Medieval Warm Period (a period from about 800 to 1300 A.D) and the cooler/wetter conditions of the Little Ice Age (1400 to 1850 A.D), and noted that rather than long-period climate shifts fire frequency was more related to decadal variability in precipitation regimes with large fires being associated with pluvial conditions (which lead to an accumulation of the fuel load) followed by several dry years. They note that the fire suppression policies put in place during the late 19th and continuing through the 20th century resulted in a “a duration of time with little to no local or regional fire activity [that] was truly anomalous in the entirety of the 1416 year record” and that the recent increase in large fires is a direct result of the increased fuel-load associated with the fire suppression policies. Had such policies not been put in place, the natural wildfire history of the 20th century would have looked much different, with large fires occurring throughout the period, rather than clumped in recent decades. And as to climate model projections themselves, research results indicate that as climate models become better refined, the model-projected declines in Southwestern precipitation become less, with the net result that the hydroclimate of the Southwest does not become as much drier as has been projected previously. The new results indicate a lessening of the threat for an increase in future wildfire occurrence. Litschert et al. (2012)."
I note burnturd thinks a grass fire in a horticultural area is a bushfire, lol
Clueless Chump Quotes Usual Suspect at Far-Right Blog Without Attribution Shock! Dog Bites Man: see page 2.
Anyone impressed by Chip K? Thought not...
Two days ago Karenmackpot claimed:
There has been a slight decline in burning over the past 3,000 y, with the lowest levels attained during the 20th century and during the Little Ice Age (LIA, ca. 1400–1700 CE [Common Era]). Prominent peaks in forest fires occurred during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (ca. 950–1250 CE) and during the 1800s.
Today Karenmackspot claims:
They found that the frequency of major fires was unchanged between the warm/dry conditions associated with the Medieval Warm Period (a period from about 800 to 1300 A.D) and the cooler/wetter conditions of the Little Ice Age (1400 to 1850 A.D),
As the youth say: epic fail.
Hey, KMS just copies and pastes this chum. He/she/it doesn't read it!
I note burnturd thinks a grass fire in a horticultural area is a bushfire, lol
That "grass fire" left in its wake:
- 62 deaths
- 900 people injured
- 652,360 acres burned
- More than 3000 buildings destroyed, including 1293 homes, 80 bridges, 1500 motor vehicles, and at least 62,000 livestock destroyed
- A damage cost of $510 million in 2012-equivalent Australian dollars.
I knowthat it was a horrific bushfire. Just as I know what I'm talking about, and just as I know that you're a clueless git with the morals of a smallpox virus.
And it's interesting how one moment I'm a citified greenie, according to your opinion, and the next a mere horticultural hick frightened of grass fires. You don't believe in sticking to a story if it doesn't support your ideological desires, do you?
I wouldn't trust your opinion if you told me that the sky was blue.
Oh, and KMSPMM.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
You don’t believe in sticking to a story if it doesn’t support your ideological desires, do you?
Oh, it's worse than that.
Karen/Mack/Sunspot/etc. believe that all evidence they think supports their pre-existing position is valid, and any other evidence is invalid.
And asserting mutually inconsistent pieces of evidence as valid is not experienced as a cognitive challenge - presumably aided by the memory of a goldfish with Alzheimer's and the logical skills of a below average three year old.
...I see there are the same characters pursuing the same flawed arguments...
Ah, another troll who's escaped from under his bridge.
Tell me Ray, to what flawed arguments are you referring, that offend you so much? And what exactly are the flaws that you perceive?
Here's something for all the deniers who insist that the hot weather has nothing to do with global warming.
I'll use Europe since the naming gets easier.
Why does the UK not have a Mediterranean climate, but a temperate maritime one? How are the two climates different? After all, the UK gets weather that is as warm or warmer than the weather you get in the Mediterranean.
It's because the weather you NORMALLY get is warmer and drier that the climates are different.
So when you start from a colder climate and get individual weather events of hot weather more often, your climate will be indistinguishable from a warmer climate.
Every weather event is affected by the climate. Every day's weather you get in the Mediterranean is affected by the climate that such a location produces, just as the UK's weather is affected by the climate produced by its location. And when that climate changes, each weather event may be indistinguishable from an identical one picked out from before, but the range of weather events will change to reflect the new climate.
So next time you go "it's cold outside, therefore the climate isn't changing", ask whether you're looking at one of a warmer climate's colder days.
"...but I see there are the same characters pursuing the same flawed arguments..."
Correct. Except the flawed arguments being pursued are those being presented by those like Ray. His/her/its non-sequitur rant about designer shirts, for example, apparently meant to be, but only reveals his/her/its cluelessness.
Or Karen's blind-sided misrepresentation of the Esper, et al. paper, which indicates a greater sensitivity to seasonally specific Milankovich forcing at high latitudes, implying an even higher sensitivity to CO2 forcing, but all through the year and at all latitudes..
...apparently meant to be humorous
the same flawed arguments
Projection, Ray. Your own argument is immensely ignorant, illogical and downright stupid.
In other news, after looking past the denialati "Bull Dust and furphy riddled denial cherry picked to death propaganda garbage, back in the real world of reality :
"The science of quantifying how climate change changes the odds of extreme weather events like droughts and floods took a major step forward Tuesday with the publication of NOAA's annual summary of the past year's weather."
Link 1 Dr Jeff Masters Wunderground :- http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2150
Link 2 NOAA Report: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120710_stateoftheclimaterepo…
As to how one can stomach a never ending stream of lies, would require a severely warped personality. One, in which their sole ingnorati mononeuron operates in a double double think/double think mobius loop cognitive dissonance mode.
Such is life!
I would say that “IF” you were there when those fires happened then you would have been a babyburnturd, or at the very least a juvenile ?
I would say you're ignorant of biology, along with everything else!
An 18 year old then would be 63 now. Guess how old the world's oldest father is?
Karen, I'd pick Bernerd at about 50-55 yrs. Jeff Harvey says he's 54. This age group has had the maximum brainwashing as they started their educational life roughly at the height of the AGW hysterical years from the early '80s through to 2000.
7th of February 1967 Hobart and Region, Tasmanian Bushfires
So………burnturd, 1967 fire’s [sic] in Tassie eh!
You remind me of the people that call themselves Vietnam Vets that never went to Vietnam.
You really are almost functionally illiterate aren't you? I bet that your lips move whenever a finger touches the keypad.
I did not say that I was here in the '67 fires. However, I do live in an area devastated by those fires, and I am surrounded by dense sclerophyll forest, so fire management is a part of life.
Don't believe me? Then read the relevant post, from July 11, 1:41 pm:
And on the matter of bushfires…
Every year I spend a few weeks where I conduct maintenance on my property with wildfire in mind, in a district where dozens of lives and many hundreds of houses have been lost to previous wildfires.
Having clarified that, as I said I have also fought bushfires in other parts of Australia, and I spent a very hot an concerned 9 hours cornered by the 1994 Eastern Seaboard fires that devastated large parts of coastal NSW. Close to where I lived it literally turned thousands of dense dry schlerophyll forest on Hawkesbury sandstone to nothing more than a layer of fine ash on what otherwise looked like a moonscape. Not even tree trunks or stumps remained, the fire was so hot and long-lasting.
Again, to quote my previous post, this is what I said:
I’ve fought bushfires in the past (hopefully, never again), and I’ve been trapped in a particularly nasty bushfire (hopefully, never ever again).
No mention of '67, because that wasn't the fire to which I referred.
I'm really not sure what your point is other than to lamely try to distract from the fact that every time I point out that you're wrong, you try to pick on something tangetial that I said, and try to pwn me on that, only to dig an ever-deepening hole for yourself in a spectaluar example of self-immolating super-pwning.
Give it up. You're wrong on time zones, you're wrong on fires, you're wrong on climate science, you're wrong on my age (listen to Lotharssson you clueless numpty, and you'll learn).
You really must have a severe need to be intellectually humiliated, even in anonymity, because you just keep on coming back for more. And you really, truly must have a bottom decile intelligence, because you make so many spectacular mistakes about trivially simple stuff that even a half-composted turnip would blush at having done so.
It's so cute when socks chat 'amongst themselves'. It's like the two proverbial short planks were having a conversation.
Karen, I’d pick Bernerd at about 50-55 yrs. Jeff Harvey says he’s 54. T
Thank you Mack, so that means that barnturd was an expert firefighter at the ripe old age of………ummm…5 or 10 ?
Give it up bozo. No-one here is fooled by your conversations with yourself.
Oh, and once again I'll point out that I didn't claim to have fought the '67 fire - I wasn't even in the country then.
Thank you Mack
Christ, next "they'll" [cough] be rabbiting on in a schizoid dialogue about Hobbitses being tricksy and false.
Who do you imagine you're fooling? I'm a bit disturbed by the thought that it might be you...
So, KMSPMM, to go back to your first post on this thread, at 9:14 am on 11 July, what is your point? Did you follow the link that MikeH posted at 9:31 am on 11 July and read all about how derailed Giaever really is?
Let me ask you a question - do you see the sheer stupidity of a physics Nobel laureate claiming that it's not possible to measure the average temperature of the Earth? More particularly, do you understand why this is ridiculous in the context of measuring temperature change over time?
Please, explain to us why you think that Giaever has a point, and why the world's best physicists and climatologists are wrong.
Bernard: "I’m really not sure what your point is
I think what we're seeing here the Horner strategy, where you attack the scientists when you can't so much as dent the science.
You'll notice that KMS puts far more effort into braindead 'deduction' against you personally than into defending their copy'n'pastes that have neither been read nor understood.
Very similar to the Jonarse Collective's meticulous detailing of how badly Lomborg was 'wronged' by Jeff, whereas anything climate science related was quickly brushed off as general uncertainty employing highly mobile goalposts.
Also - we get given the BoM averages for, wait for it, Coonabarabran (top spot - love the Warrumbungles!), and Glen Innes (Brrrrr)!?
Disproving, apparently -
He says that Autumn comes later and spring and summer comes earlier, he see’s this in nature !
Plants budding early, frogs disappearing, warmer in winter and summer, wahhh wahhh wahhh ect ect.
WTF?! as all the fully sick happening homie chaps do say...
(Love the 'ECT'. You could probably do with some.)
I had a quick look at one of the tables, for Glen Innes.
I noted that the full record mean maximum was 20.2, while the min was 7.3, and for the last month of Autumn - May - means were 16.7 and 4.5 respectively, and for the first of Spring - Sept - they were 17.8 and 4.0.
While for the 1981-2010 period they have been 20.4 / 8.2, and 17.2 / 5.7 and 18.2 / 5.1 respectively.
Interestingly, for the period 1891-1920, the figures are 20.2 / 6.6 16.2 / 3.5 and 17.9 / 3.6
I'm sure you imagine there was a point you were making.
The KMS collective is so thick they're lucky that breathing is involuntary... ("I've exhaled... hang on... what do I do next again?... oh, shit, man, I used to know this.. urk...")
It’s so cute when socks chat ‘amongst themselves’. It’s like the two proverbial short planks were having a conversation.
"They" make short planks look positively erudite.
You residents here give new meaning to the expression "being one-eyed" ,or more likely you're just slightly schizoid. Perhaps a good whack to the head to enable you to see double may help? Inconveniently Bernerd there are two different people here , one from NZ and the other from Australia.
This age group [50-55 years] has had the maximum brainwashing as they started their educational life roughly at the height of the AGW hysterical years from the early ’80s through to 2000.
Karen may be functionally illiterate but Mack is functionally innumerate - and I haven't even mentioned history yet.
“I’ve exhaled… hang on… what do I do next again?… oh, shit, man, I used to know this.. urk…”
Unluckily, breathing is an autonomous action like a heartbeat and doesn't require any higher brain function other than the stem.
If it weren't for this, the very dumbest would have died off aeons ago and we'd have fewer denidiots like Spots around.
OK Lotharsson , fair enough Let me reclassify the AGW hysterical years. They started in 1972 to be precise,and got worse late 70's early 80's . By the 90's there was actually a bit of real warming to reinforce the indoctrination already in place so I'll discount that decade.
Inconveniently Bernerd there are two different people here
Karen (July 11, 9:14 am) gave a link to a video clip of at least 8 minutes in length and within 6 minutes you comment on it. If there are two different people, they must inhabit the same body.
"Let me reclassify the AGW hysterical years."
What makes you classify them as hysteria?
Your hate of AGW's conclusion of your activities and hatred of consequences of your actions and abhorrence of taking responsibility for your actions do not make AGW hysterical, only yourself.
Mack, if you're in New Zealand I'm the Pope. You don't even know someone in NZ who could give you a clue about the impact of their ETS.
Reading this thread gives me some idea of what open days at Bedlam must have been like.
The "only" thing hysterical about those years was the 1974 Time magazine article on global cooling.
And lest it be forgotten, Arrhenius had something to say about global warming long before the 1970s (in 1896 in fact):
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature
will increase in arithmetic progression.
Wrong clip dumpkoff. I was commenting on Tim's main clip at the top. A for Paranoia . D for Observation.
You are the Pope, and I can see you've flogged his sunnies.
Z- for observation, Mack.
Still missed the "how do you get to hysterical 1972?" question.
Or is the answer "Because I hate being responsible for what I did"?
Yeah , P Lewis, Strange how old Arrhenius called it carbonic acid eh, That's weakly acidulated water isn't it. So was it the water or the CO2? Well just mix it in with water at the heading of my paper to cover my ass both ways. Probably was all water and hydrological anyway.
Cheesy biscuits! You are a Class I moron.
Carbonic acid is the archaic name for carbon dioxide used by early chemists.
Yeah , P Lewis, Strange how old Arrhenius called it carbonic acid eh, That’s weakly acidulated water isn’t it. So was it the water or the CO2? Well just mix it in with water at the heading of my paper to cover my ass both ways. Probably was all water and hydrological anyway.
Besides the oft-noted comma burps, "Mack" is also as stupidly ignorant as his alters "Karen" and "Sunspot".
Oh, and New Zealanders say "arse", just as Australians do. "Ass" is an Americanism...
"Probably was all water and hydrological anyway".
I don't think I've ever seen a better self-supplied description of the depths of stupidity it takes to be a willing useful idiot (or more accurately useless idiot, in this case) for that which is several hundred pay grades above your comprehension.
Snap my arse Bernerd.
Trying to close that barn door again, eh?
The horse bolted a long time ago, dumb-arse.
Bernard J. @ 4:01 pm
Oh, and New Zealanders say “arse”, just as Australians do. “Ass” is an Americanism.
An Americanism which describes Mack et. al. to a 'T' or even a 'TC'..
Better class of trolls please. The current crop are too vapid and tedious to be worth replying to any longer.
*Karen, I’d pick Bernerd at about 50-55 yrs. Jeff Harvey says he’s 54*
And you, Mack, are a brainless nitwit who acts like he's about 10...
P Lewis ,
So why then P Lewis, Why did Arrhenius call it carbonic acid. Think about it. How difficult is it going to be to manufacture, transport (through glass tubes) and store CO2 without it coming in contact with or displacing air and its attendant water vapour, Arrhenius and people of his time would be aware of this hence carbonic acid.
So was it the water or the CO2?
It's possible that your statements are so mind-numbingly dense that no-one's actually cottoned on to what you mean. You're trying to tell us that the results Arhennius got are actually from water vapour, aren't you?
You really are an ass. And an arse.
"How difficult is it going to be to manufacture, transport (through glass tubes) and store CO2 without it coming in contact with or displacing air and its attendant water vapour..."
Joseph Black was able to produce chemically pure CO2 by heating limestone in the 1750's.
P Lewis ,
So why then P Lewis, Why did Arrhenius call it carbonic acid.
Which part of
Carbonic acid is the archaic name for carbon dioxide used by early chemists
are you having serious difficulty understanding then? "Archaic", maybe:
archaic a. M19. 1 Of a word, language, etc.: no longer in ordinary use...
It's from the French "acide carbonique", courtesy of Lavoisier. Other archaic names CO2 has been known by are "fixed air" and "gas sylvestre" (or wood gas). There may be others.
Arrhenius's 1986 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" in The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science leaves no doubt he's talking about carbonic acid GAS. For example:
... whilst other authors, for instance Lecher and Pernter, are inclined to think that the carbonic acid plays the more important part. The researches of Paschen show that these gases [aqueous-vapour and carbonic acid] are both very effective..."
You then continue:
Think about it.
Well, I don't have to and you haven't and/or can't.
I humiliated Karen so we get Mack until Karen feels enough time has passed.
The United States of Sunspot.
Yeah, P Lewis and in 20 or 30 years time "carbonic acid gas " will become as archaic as "greenhouse gas".
Make that 80 or 90 years . We've got you lot to contend with.
It's already archaic, dipstick.
You really were the thicko that sat at the back of the class, threw pellets, and constantly mouthed off, in the hope that no-one would realise how inadequate your stupidity made you feel, aren't you?
Still trying to get your own back against your intellectual betters? It ain't working.
Bill, it would seem that The United States of KMSPMM is actually predicting the revival of the usage “carbonic acid gas" not only to its previous zenith, but to almost ubiquitous lay understanding.
At least, if “carbonic acid gas" is to be as well appreciated as "greenhouse gas" will be in 20 to 30 years, that would be my interpretation...
Of course, your assessments of his academic career and his lack of intellectual acuity stand, and do so most firmly.
Teh Stupid really burns.
Perhaps the Karen/Mack/Sunspot axis is simply trying to achieve a single comment that gets one relevant and non-trivial factual claim correct, at which point they will retire with a sigh of great relief.
Based on current evidence I don't like their chances though.
If Mack had shit for brains he'd have a distinct advantage compared with his current state.
Mack hasn't reached The Curtain's level of misstatements and miscomprehension of physics and its history, but that's primarily because he hasn't said as much.
Does energy propagate through a vacuum, Mack?
Oh, he knows that one; yes, that 's how his Hoover works!
Breakthrough with P Lewis , Yes , Mack is the name. Not Karen nor Sunspot . You're quicker than the comrades posting just above you. Congratulations. Give that one neuron advantage you've got over the other two a well deserved rest..
The answer is yes , as you know for yourself that energy passes through the vacuum between your ears.
So, you've abandoned your ridiculous claim about Arrhenius, then?
Well just mix it in with water at the heading of my paper to cover my ass both ways.
Yeah , just question marks. ie nothing.
Yeah , just question marks. ie nothing.
Well my punctuation may occasionally be suspect but it is clear that you don't know where to start. You missed that part of your education as well as science I guess. But then one cannot progress far in any field if ones grasp of language is shaky. You are a classic case.
"Almost half a million people have been ordered or advised to leave their homes in south west Japan due to heavy rain.
"Television footage showed torrents of muddy, debris-strewn water and flooded houses following what officials described as "unprecedented" downpours from a weather front on Thursday
The answer is yes
Then please explain it to Tim Curtin.
as you know for yourself that energy passes through the vacuum between your ears
That's a nice try, but it doesn't really work if you think about it (which would be novel for you).
Congrats Tim...good layout and robust conversation.
In January, 2012, an international team led by Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth published a new study in the Earth and Planetary Science Letters examining the sea level history of Tasmania. Using cores taken from salt marshes, they reconstructed sea level development for the last 6000 years. Especially interesting are the last 200 years.
Sea level rose between 1900 and 1950 at a rate of 4.2 mm per year (Figure 6), but slowed down considerably in the second half of the 20th century to an average of only 0.7 mm per year – similar to southern New Zealand. No sea level rise acceleration is detectable in the Australian New Zealand region over the last decades. In fact, just the opposite is true. Sea level rise slowed down in the second half of the century.
What the denialists say:
"No sea level rise acceleration is detectable in the Australian New Zealand region over the last decades."
What the scientists actually said:
"During the latter half of the 20th century the reconstructed rate of relative sea-level rise was 0.7 ± 0.6 mm/yr."
which has accelerated to 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/yr since 1990.
i.e. another case of proof by non-supporting or contradictory citation, a standard denialist technique.
Karen has done a unattributed copy and paste from here - if it looks like denialist pap, Karen,s "skepticism" disappears.
My guess is Karen has the "deeds" to the Eiffel Tower and the Brooklyn Bridge.
"which has accelerated to 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/yr since 1990."
Should be 1993.
Here it is again numpties.
"Palaeosea-level positions were determined by foraminiferal analyses. Relative sea level in Tasmania was within half a metre of present sea level for much of the last 6000 yr. Between 1900 and 1950 relative sea level rose at an average rate of 4.2 ± 0.1 mm/yr. During the latter half of the 20th century the reconstructed rate of relative sea-level rise was 0.7 ± 0.6 mm/yr. Our study is consistent with a similar pattern of relative sea-level change recently reconstructed for southern New Zealand. The change in the rate of sea-level rise in the SW Pacific during the early 20th century was larger than in the North Atlantic and could suggest that northern hemisphere land-based ice was the most significant melt source for global sea-level rise."
I know that all these peer reviewed papers that I post in here makes you all doubt your sanity, tough titties, It's about time you all face the facts that the climate facade syense is failing at all levels now, soon the only part of it that will remain will be the joke's that are told for the next 100 yrs about all the dumbo's that believed fat al.
Karenmmackspot posts another paper that strengthens the evidence for AGW.
And I especially liked a recent paper Karenmackspot posted that cited Mann's hockey stick.
Look what happens when you don't read things.
So, 'Karen', do you acknowledge that the BoM posting you made regarding Glen Innes also bolstered the AGW argument - particularly a warmer, longer Autumn and Spring - not yours?
You know, you guys are such patent clowns that it would be very easy to play 'Trojan Post' - put up a link to a paper confirming AGW but with an accompanying claim that it's a bona-fide 'another nail in the coffin' chunk of delectable chum at WUWT, Jo Nova's, or the Sticky Bishop's - and watch you all copy and paste it around without ever bothering to read it.
In fact, how do you know it isn't happening already?
You might like to research on Thames Barrier and increasing frequency of raising same and then reflect upon why this should be.
You are a numpty dumpty, so broken can never be put back together again.
But keep posting links to these papers for each one demonstrates how little you truly understand.
Here you go, explain this away Extreme heat becoming more likely under climate change and follow a link (that is spade work for you to do) to this:
Worldwide, 2011 was the coolest year on record since 2008, yet temperatures remained above the 30 year average, according to the 2011 State of the Climate report released online today by NOAA.
Now all of us here wish that this were not true. Non of us take satisfaction in demonstrating your straight up devious cherry picking for we are all very concerned about where events are leading us. The fact that you can still eschew this means that your are either the village idiot or a lying perhaps mostly to yourself. You are showing considerable intellectual dishonesty, as much as a 'village idiot' can show that is.
USKMSPMM, I posted about the Gehrels et al paper a month or two ago (I'm not sure it is was here or elsewhere), precisely because it supports the evidence for sea level rise. I came across the paper for work reasons, and I have it on the USB stick attached to my computer as I type.
I doubt that you actually read the paper, so you might be interested in the conclusion:
Relative sea-level change in eastern Tasmania was reconstructed from analyses of salt-marsh and estuarine deposits. The record shows that sea-level was stable and slightly lower than present during the middle and late Holocene and during the 19th century. Starting between 1880 and 1900, sea level rose at about 4 mm/yr until the 1950s after which sea-level rise significantly slowed down. Maximum rates of sealevel rise were achieved in the 1910s (4.5±2.5 mm/yr). The reconstructed 20th century average rate of relative sea-level rise in eastern Tasmania is 1.5±0.4 mm/yr. The rapid early 20th century sea-level change documented in eastern Tasmania also occurred in southeastern New Zealand. The magnitude of the change observed in the records from Tasmania and New Zealand is greater than in the North Atlantic and is consistent with a spatial pattern that suggests that Northern Hemisphere melt sources contributed significantly to global sea-level rise in the early 20th century. Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online at doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.08.046.
You really need to go read the whole thing. You also really need to understand what "relative" means, and what "eastern Tasmania"and "southeastern New Zealand" mean.
Seriously, it what world do you imagine that Gehrels et al even remotely disproves the science of global warming and its attendant sequelæ?
The magnitude of the change observed in the records from Tasmania and New Zealand is greater than in the North Atlantic and is consistent with a spatial pattern that suggests that Northern Hemisphere melt sources contributed significantly to global sea-level rise in the early 20th century.
I think it no coincidence that the early part of the twentieth century saw increasing numbers of large bergs drifting down and out of the Davis Strait and into the North Atlantic shipping lanes. Researchers of the Titanic disaster became aware of this from maritime logs of the period.
Of course the berg the Titanic met would have calved from a glacier, and hence added its own portion to sea level rise, a few years prior to 1912.
Maritime, mostly naval and naval aviation, history is one of my interests.
Nice to see my home town rate a mention in these august pages. Glen Innes had a freakishly long autumn this year. Was still bringing in tomatoes in the first week of May, three weeks later than the previous season. And all the deciduous trees and perennial food plants are budding again already...about 4 weeks earlier than usual. I've got *flowers* on the broccoli plants, and nasturtiums sprouting from seed (they didn't do that until September last year).
Actually this town is one of the very few parts of Australia that will be more comfortable and more productive food-wise with a 2 degree temperature increase this century, so if long-term property investments are your thing, buy, buy, buy! (PS - 1100 metres above sea level too...nice!)
Where I live spur-wing plovers have almost always hatched their first brood of the season in the third week of August, usually within a day or two of the 20th of the month.
This year, however, I saw the first brood of plover chicks running around the paddock on 14 July.
Whether they will survive late chills remains to be seen, but the parents obviously thought that spring was on the way.
You would be right that it's no coincidence (the issue of Greenlands mass loss was recently discussed following one of Karen's better examples of pedal autopercussion).
It is also interesting to note that following the peak in iceberg sightings, the situation has now radically changed.
This year, almost no substantial bergs rounded Cape Spear into the former "iceberg alley". And the few that did didn't survive long enough to reach the line of Titanic's course. And its not like the Titanic berg was a singleton - that night there was an icefield at least 50km long and several km wide blocking the main shipping channel.
It is well known that the water temperature overnight was subzero (due to the proximity of the icefield); people lapsed into unconsciousness in minutes and died well before the Carpathia arrived two hours after the sinking. But...
At noon on the 14th April, then around 42N 47.5W and about 110 miles from the ice field, Californian took a sea surface temperature measurement of 50d F (10 d C). On 14th April this year at noon at Californians position, sea surface temperature was 17 d C, while at the Titanic collision site, it likely remained above 12 d C overnight.
So, had you dropped 1500 people into the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the night this year, 50% to 70% would have survived the two hours it took Carpathia to arrive - exhausted, hypothermic, unconscious even, but mostly still alive.
Of course, two sea surface temperatures a hundred years apart are just "weather", but given the thermal inertia of the ocean, I find the ~7d C increase remarkable.
But that's not proof,frank.
Because it isn't saying that agw is false, therefore it -must- be faked!
Here is a link that demonstrates that the video above is indeed a CrOcK.
All history would have to be erased before the CO2 fable could gain traction, one little warm spot just doesn't cut the mustard.
Especially when everywhere else is cold.
So how does GLOBAL climate relate to a regional problem mostly caused by over-intensive farming, spots?
OK KrakenKnutt it just so happens that Tamino has just put together a brilliant article 'Craps' explaining what we have put in motion with our ramp-up of agro-industrial activity.
Here is a link that demonstrates that the video above is indeed a CrOcK.
So...the strong climate-related trends pointed out in the video aren't actually climate-related because there was a bad drought in the past?
It appears that you simply cannot (or are not wiling to) understand the case the scientists are putting forward, as your "rebuttals" fail to address that case every single time.
How come if we had bad droughts in the past, we still get droughts today, karen? Surely we should have run out of water!
Here's a question for all you deniers.
What do you think you're doing? Even if your contention were correct and AGW didn't exist, the only data you can get in support is laughably bad. Cherry picks, conspiracy nut theories, nonsequitors, and flat out lies.
If your intent was to prove you had nothing, you've done it.
Here's a question for all of you: when did AGW / Climate Change get so boring? The issue is all but dead to the general population of Canada and the USA.
Wow, I just watched the first minute of the Sinclair video and it's full of cherry picks: "oooh a puny town in Kansas was 118 degrees, must be AGW!!!" or "the temperature was so high the road buckled! Must be AGW!!! Science!!!" I guess that's OK if they support AGW baloney, right?
it’s full of cherry picks
You're lying denialist scum. Quote marks should include what people actually say. Try it some time.
ianman, have you not heard of sarcasm and/or paraphrasing? Is that really the best you can do? Sorry that you're so hurt about the death of AGW.
"ben" misses the argument of the video, exactly like Karen did earlier. It's not claiming that the weather at a cherry-picked town proves AGW - although it's easy to see why denialists might think so, because that's how people like Karen and Sunspot "prove" it's not warming when they cite a cold place. I presume ben denies that logic, even if someone like Karen or Sunspot were to use it?
The video clearly goes on to show trends in global and aggregate measures that strongly indicate warming. Perhaps ben could try actually watching it to see the argument it's making before he confidently decries it.
And ben can't even seem to decide whether it's the A in AGW that he's denying, or the W.
Then again, ben could easily be a Poe.
What is it about idiots and mutiple punctuation???!!!
Reality is not determined by opinion polls.
have you not heard of sarcasm and/or paraphrasing?
Yes, but unlike you I know what they are, you stupid fucking wretched sack of lying denier shit. You didn't paraphase the video, you lied about what it says. So fuck off and die.
Perhaps ben could try actually watching it
The part that he did watch had "Warmest 12 month period since 1985" plastered on the screen. If ben weren't so intensely stupid and dishonest he could attempt to make an argument about that not implying AGW, instead idiotically lying about cherry picking ... another term he doesn't understand the meaning of, despite so much practice doing it.
Then again, ben could easily be a Poe.
No, really not, and not just because ben has frequented this and other climate blogs in the past.
Ben if you're paraphrasing and getting a different meaning, ur doin it wrong.
Ben doesn't care so much he came by repeatedly to tell us how little he cares.
Doesn't sound like he's particularly confident.
...when did AGW / Climate Change get so boring?
Boring? Only if you've been pithed.
For anyone with a modicum of understanding about the science, the serious implications for the future just keep on worsening.
ianman, I found you on youtube!
"For anyone with a modicum of understanding about the science, the serious implications for the future just keep on worsening."
And yet the vast majority of people don't care.
ben Seattle, WA
Here’s a question for all of you: when did AGW / Climate Change get so boring? The issue is all but dead to the general population of Canada and the USA.
Either you need to get out more or watch something other than Fox News.
A simple google on "Globe and Mail climate change" shows up:
"Climate change opens up Arctic fisheries – but should Canada cut bait?" Saturday, Jul. 21 2012
"Climate change’s costs hit the plate" Tuesday, Jul. 24 2012,
"Gen Xers on climate change: Meh" Thursday, Jul. 19 2012
"Climate change likely to bring food inflation" Monday, Jul. 16 2012
"Canada and climate change: all plan, no action Saturday, May. 12 2012,
One paper in one city.
Oh, and CBC & climate change
"Climate change linked to recent weather extremes
3 types of evidence combine to bolster scientific case" Mar 26, 2012
"Wildrose leader takes heat over climate change views" Apr 19, 2012
Climate change shrinks forests in 3 Prairie provinces
Finding belies assumption that global warming improves growing conditions The Canadian Press Jan 31, 2012
Yup, it's a dead letter okay.
And yet the vast majority of people don’t care.
Ben maybe that is because they watch and read too much vapid and distorting MM.
Have a look at the latest Open Thread for instances of where climate change and its effects are brought to the fore, ignoring the noise from the usual muppets.
Ben, where do you get the idea that the majority don't care? Remember, in an echo chamber, the voices you hear is your own one multiplied.
68% in Europe think AGW is a serious problem and 83% think not enough is being done about it.
Those figures are lower, 42% and 48%
Cutnpaste caused the page to jump about, clicked submit early...
In the usa. Only Saudi Arabia have a lower opinion of AGW officially, no census of the pipulace has taken place, though.
Worldwide, nearly 75% of peoole think that AGW is a serious problem facing the world.
“For anyone with a modicum of understanding about the science, the serious implications for the future just keep on worsening.”
And yet the vast majority of people don’t care.
That would make the vast majority of people ignorant fools. Was that your point?
However,the claim is incorrect: the majority DO care.
But when you're limited to WTFUWT and Faux News/Hannity, your "majority" is self-selecting for like-mindedness.
"Worldwide, nearly 75% of peoole think that AGW is a serious problem facing the world."
Denialism has only gained traction in a few places where the right alignment has occurred of dishonest media and ignorant politicians.
It is almost solely in english-speaking countries where denialism has gained a foothold: USA, Canada, Australia, and to a lesser extent the UK.
Canada is mostly the government being denialist.
A common complaint over the government that gived them a low vote is their stance on AGW. The effects are much more noticeable there.
Is that you, Wow?
Yeah, that's me.
The UK keeps talking up how they're going to be green, but as soon as anything might be done, the tories stop it happening.
Very little different from the Canadian or Australian government.
All three governments have very poor approval ratings, but being a democracy with more than two parties, a 22% voting share is enough to get you into power.
Cool. You gived me some confusion with your turning of phrase.
I was wondering if someone had typed the wrong name by accident.
REALLY crappy for anything other than "sit there in a cramped position and squint at a small screen while we show you content on the internet".
The Age goes over to the dark side, thanks to Gina
@Lionel A - July 15, 3:52 pm :
"Bernard J The magnitude of the change observed in the records from Tasmania and New Zealand is greater than in the North Atlantic and is consistent with a spatial pattern that suggests that Northern Hemisphere melt sources contributed significantly to global sea-level rise in the early 20th century. I think it no coincidence that the early part of the twentieth century saw increasing numbers of large bergs drifting down and out of the Davis Strait and into the North Atlantic shipping lanes. Researchers of the Titanic disaster became aware of this from maritime logs of the period. Of course the berg the Titanic met would have calved from a glacier, and hence added its own portion to sea level rise, a few years prior to 1912. Maritime, mostly naval and naval aviation, history is one of my interests."
Astronomy is one of mine and, interestingly enough, the April 2012 issue of (American) 'Sky & Telescope' magazine had a fascinating (cover) article on some of the astronomical (esp. lunar) events that led to the extreme amount of ice and calving in 1912 focusing mostly on the extreme perigean tides caused by a rare phenomena of spring tides coinciding with perihelion when the Earth is closest to our Sun.
This could have made more icebergs calve from the glaciers and also led to higher sea levels meaning fewer of them grounded and thus more reached open oceans.
That combined with a dark moonless night and calm seas preventing giveaway breaking water - and forgotten binoculars left back in Southhampton - contributed to the Titanic's loss together with so horribly many of its passengers and crew.
^ D'oh! Sorry, The first paragraph there was supposed to be blockquoted not the whole comment italicised. Somehow that ended up messed up.
@Lionel A - July 25, 4:39 pm :
"And yet the vast majority of people don’t care." (- Ben? ed)
Ben maybe that is because they watch and read too much vapid and distorting MM. Have a look at the latest Open Thread for instances of where climate change and its effects are brought to the fore, ignoring the noise from the usual muppets.
@Wow - July 25, 5:24 pm :
Ben, where do you get the idea that the majority don’t care? Remember, in an echo chamber, the voices you hear is your own one multiplied. 68% in Europe think AGW is a serious problem and 83% think not enough is being done about it. ...
Greenman3610 has a good post on the growing acceptence of scientifically confirmed reality here :
Which observes :
"With 70 percent of Americans now agreeing that global warming is affecting weather in the U.S., the public is showing increasing support for measures that would tackle the problem of climate change, according to a new survey. Conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, the survey showed that 60 percent of Americans would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports legislation that would reduce the federal income tax and make up for that decrease in revenue by increasing taxes on fossil fuels. The ongoing survey — which divides the U.S. public into six categories on global warming, from the alarmed to the dismissive — showed that an overwhelming majority of people who identified themselves as alarmed, concerned, or cautious about global warming say that if people with their views worked together, they could influence politicians’ views on global warming."
Well worth reading in full. Should all be blockquoted this time..
Hope this helps.
It's been fairly close to a majority all along. More people thought AGW was a serious problem and/or thought more should be done about it than thought it was false.
But if you only go on blog noise, you only hear what you're willing to listen to and for Faux News listeners, everyone they listen to says it's all fake.
That combined with a dark moonless night and calm seas preventing giveaway breaking water – and forgotten binoculars left back in Southhampton – contributed to the Titanic’s loss together with so horribly many of its passengers and crew.
As it happens over the last few years I have been collecting literature about Titanic and Olympic, The White Star Line (a part of the J P Morgan empire which also owned the Californian) plus Harland & Wolff. There were considerable conflicts of interest amongst these parties which following the Olympic's collision with the protected cruiser HMS Hawke could have been behind the fate of the Titanic.
Some consider that a switch of the two liners was a conspiracy that could never have been kept hidden. One only has to think how well kept were the secrets of Bletchley Park to appreciate that anything is possible. One of the authors who pours cold water on the switch conspiracy, Churnside, produced a degree dissertation dismissing the damage Olumpic sustained in the Hawke collision. However he has clearly not been on a ship when in collision with another vessel. I have (HMS Ark Royal v. Soviet Kotlin destroyer). From photographs of both vessels and scale drawing of Olympic I have concluded that indeed the Hawke could have fatally compromised the castings supporting the centre propeller. I am ambivalent on the switch theory btw.
Sorry for OT. Email if interested in more. Thanks for the 'Sky and Telescope' info. I am interested in astronomy too more of the armchair variety though.